Related posts:

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 8th, 2012 at 8:00 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

153 Responses to “General Debate 8 December 2012”

David Shearer appears to be weighing up his options for deputy prime minister between Green co-leader Russel Norman and NZ First leader Winston Peters as he looks for ways to reward support partners without letting go of the key finance portfolio.
This is on stuff .. great stuff

jaba
That is a key issue for Labour – how to build a credible coalition in waiting. For National the task is different – aim to stay in the high forties and pick up support from the fragments of also-rans, whomsoever they may be.

You poor Christchurch suckers are going to be fleeced all over again.
IRD who were a general failure as a good citizen down there is after yoiur earthquake cash. Its just gunna cost you more.
————————–

You have a couple of choices. Toss out the few Nats you have and replace them with someone worse or complain like fuck to Uncle Gerry.

Wellingtonians can fix it by getting rid of the town prostitue before he joins another club.

There has been a chorus of dismay from the tax industry since the IRD put out a statement this week saying it intends to tax allowances and accommodation provided to employees who have to work away from home.

It also wants to make the tax retrospective, asking employers to look over their books going back as far as four years.

I’ve often thought of how to best describe my politics. Manolo just prompted me to do it again when he said.

Great example of perennial straddling the middle of the road.

People like Manolo have trouble understanding what the road is like from their position bumping along to the right of the median strip.

The Manolos confuse two things – extreme and strong. They may have weak or strong extreme political views. Others have weak or stong views closer to the centre.

I’m easy and persuadable on many things, but I can be very strong on others, when I think it’s justified and I feel the cause is worthwhile enough.

Sometimes it doesn’t make much difference whether a policy ends up a bit to the left or right (many in fact have components of both).

When topics come up I’m often undecided so I question and probe and throw different ideas into the mix. And I listen. Some mistake that for weakness, I think exploring and learning is a strength. Once I have learnt enough I’ll take a position. Sometimes that position isn strong, sometimes it’s not that important. Picking fights is a key art of politics.

Extreme ideologues are more inclined to take an immediate position and look for things to support that. They paint themselves into an ideological corner. I understand what they are doing and try to avoid it.

So I don’t meekly ‘straddle the road’, I drive down the road looking out for traffic, potholes, the best lane, and I occasionally glance at people struggling along in the rough to the side of the road, frustrated and never getting anywhere satisfactorily.

Pragamatic centre based politics is a good place to be – and it’s where most real life governance is concentrated.

Well Reid, I know you realise that there must eventually be a world government: it’s just the details of how that government operates that are up for grabs.

It’s not inevitable mm, but so far it’s winning.

And this is just the start. You wait till all the appliances are hooked up. NSA, GCSB etc can already go into your PC and turn on the camera and mic, imagine what they will do when every TV has one.

Seriously this deep packet inspection proposal just shows how corporates have infiltrated the political process. Which is as we know the definition of facism. But anyway, that link justifies DPI in terms of copyright owners being able to inspect for commercial reasons. As recently as ten years ago such a committee would have been solely concerned with governmental access for law enforcement and intelligence gathering, and they can do now and all do DPI routinely. Putting in a pitch for a corporate would have been unthinkable. But now, it’s mere de rigeur.

And commensurate is the ability to enforce copyright across borders and extradite. All part of globalisation.

Story in economist about heritage, Cato etc becoming less independent think tanks and more lobbying institutions;

‘AS MY colleague noted earlier, Jim Demint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, will vacate his senate seat and assume the presidency of the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank.

With Mr DeMint’s move, all of Washington’s three most prominent right-leaning think tanks will have undergone regime change in recent years. The changes are telling. Arthur Brooks took the reins of The American Enterprise Institute in 2008. Mr Brooks was previously a chaired professor of public policy at Syracuse University. A protracted struggle this year and last over control of the Cato Institute’s board of directors resolved with the “retirement” of Ed Crane, who had presided over Cato since its earliest days, and his replacement as president by John Allison, an incredibly wealthy former bank executive with a commitment to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. And now Heritage, which has been helmed by Ed Feulner since 1977, will take on a high-profile Republican senator as its chief. These changes in leadership speak to the character of Washington’s most influential right-leaning think tanks. The wonkish professor, the Randian banker, and the establishment Republican politician each tell us something about the priorities of the institution he was been chosen to lead.”http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/12/think-tank-independence?fsrc=nlw|newe|12-7-2012|4327762|37425103|AP

That’s always been the law Viking. Nothing new about that, IRD just enforcing existing rules.

It’s a bloody stupid law though Greg. All the IRD focus on is a blanket net. Which is their job. Unfortunately there seems to no other agency, such as Treasury or MBIE, who are permanently tasked with putting forward counter-proposals as to the effect on compliance costs and general efficiency. For example, meals and accommodation when away is not a perk. It’s not something fiendish businesses use to secretly pay their employees more and evade the Revenue. This does not happen.

Due to my extensive reading of their output my views have moved away from those espoused by the right-wing lobby tanks.
That they deliberately misinform on one subject leads to the logical conclusion that they misinform on all subjects.

David Shearer appears to be weighing up his options for deputy prime minister between Green co-leader Russel Norman and NZ First leader Winston Peters as he looks for ways to reward support partners without letting go of the key finance portfolio.

And this shows why Shearer is doomed. Probably as soon as Feb, but if not then, it will be his own Brutus before the election.

Can he possibly think for even a moment that Grant Robertson will be happy to forgo the Deputy PM role so that Shearer can have Parker as finance minister?

And while Robertson may very well hate Cunliffe, Shearer has inadvertently opened the door to a conversation where Cunliffe asks Robertson if he would prefer to be Minister of Educaiton under Shearer, or Deputy PM under Cunliffe. (I suspect Roberston thinks he is still capable of knifing Shearer on his own, but it will still help to drive the wedge between Robertson and Shearer.)

What planet is Shearer on? (Planet Labour is the obvious answer, but it would seem to be a different Planet Labour to the one Robertson will be on.)

Sure it’s tragic. But (a) we don’t yet know how the hospital treated her (it claims they supported her but they would say that wouldn’t they) and (b) even if the hospital did treat her well afterward, her reaction was, while tragic, OTT. It’s very sad, but it shouldn’t become a precedent that forever changes crank calls. It might, because most people are idiots. But it shouldn’t.

Ringing a Hospital, pretending to be patient’s family, and asking for personal details is pretty bloody dodgy.
Now that the nurse involved has taken her own life I hope that these self-professed ‘shock jocks’ suffer some consequence for their actions….

Of course they will be and the Herald says they won’t be reporting for work again so that’s their careers as well. But when you look at it, why should they lose their careers or feel guilty over this? This is no different from when that other guy impersonated someone, Bush? and slipped through the perimeter. Remember that? Same deal here.

Or it would have been if this hadn’t happened. But while what they did triggered her to kill herself, why is that their fault? How were they to know she would do that?

Whatever the emotions say about this tragic event, those above are the bare hard facts.

Ringing a Hospital, pretending to be patient’s family, and asking for personal details is pretty bloody dodgy.

It was vetted by their lawyers before they played it so some Aussie law firm might lose a client.

” Mr Key had ruled out working with Mr Peters but, since the last election, he has left the door open to a deal in 2014. He said any personal animosity was not mutual.

“I don’t hate Winston at all. I think in a lot of respects I have respect for him as an MP. But he’s an Opposition MP. That’s where he loves it.”

Mr Peters laughed at Mr Key’s comments.

“Is he getting all sensitive now is he? Ha ha ha. Good Lord.”

Mr Key ruled out a deal with him over the Owen Glenn donations furore in 2008, and said he did not meet his standards, “when he had no fact to fly on”.

“You’ve got to be pretty, pretty arrogant to make a statement like that,” Mr Peters said. “Anybody, even a fly parachuting out of the rear end of a snake, could do better than what Merrill Lynch have done over the last few years, and they have been doing it for years.”

So now a person making a hoax call should first check with a pychiatrist to get permission in case the recipient has a psycotic episode?
I agree it was a stupid prank, but should all fun be banned?
All of the facts are not known yet, I am hoping this is a counter hoax to get back at the Aussie dicks

For example, meals and accommodation when away is not a perk. It’s not something fiendish businesses use to secretly pay their employees more and evade the Revenue. This does not happen.

Utter bullshit. Staying away allowances, accomodation, and meal allowances are the greatest perk ever in the construction trades. (apart from stealing everything to build your own house)
As an employee I could always live, eat and get pissed without touching my wages and as you tended to be working big hours while away you would be raking it in.
As an employer I always paid a large accom allowance then arranged cheap accom so there was a bonus for being away, and the guys typically worked 55 hr/ 5 day weeks so had a decent weekend.

Not to forget the incompetency of the hospital management.
Why, at little old Wellington Hospital,there was a definite protocol for handling enquiries about people who were deemed by the media as being of public interest.
You’d think that the royals would be well shielded from juvenile aussies – perhaps they need a Privacy Act?

Its a bit of a shit sandwhich for those radio jocks. They were doing what they are paid to do which is bring something interesting/funny to the air. Its not as they knew the nurse would snap and climb a high building with a powerful semi auto rifle and mow down half the population of London…

North shore steve.All fun should not be banned.
Media organisations have a duty to behave ethically and phoning a hospital,on a live broadcast,impersonating other people,and revealing private health info about someone is not ethical,it might even be illegal.

I note a dgree of approval of this stupidity because the Royals were the target,plummy accents and making fun of the priveliged,is OK in media circles.

That’s reverse snobbery,but then that’s the media.

Yesterday ,the girl who reports from Australia for TV3 was making light of the affair,even suggesting it’s the Royal’s fault for making an issue of the prank,and that it wouldn’t have been widely reported otherwise!Another idiot .

Colville the point is in order to stimulate Christchurch to the maximum extent you want to minimise the money disappearing into the Consolidated Fund and maximise the money flowing in to stimulate Christchurch businesses the whole time the rebuild is going on for.

This will rejuvenate the local economy. You imagine how much spending is going to come from around 10,000 hungry hard-drinking lads every single night for the next 2-3 years. But no, let’s tax the heck out of it instead.

With respect, that’s mental.

This is one of the reasons I’ve never been able to approve Dunn. While he’s been a very good Revenue Minister and a shining example of a model that should be more emulated (don’t shuffle Ministers round all the time, if they’re good, leave them where they are, like Ryall also), he’s got no imagination or perspicacity. But that’s not his fault really, that’s why another agency should always come in on the rebuttal. But this argument isn’t rocket science is it so someone must have tabled it you’d think.

I’m showing some solidarity with Colonial Viper and millsy who both announced their exit from The Standard yesterday due to apparent pressure from the Labour Party to cease and desist from commenting.

Politically pressured censorship is one of the worst abuses of power. As a cross blog commenter I condemn what seems to have happened and hope the freedom to speak is restored to them both, and any others who may have shut up more discreetly.

A huge amount of the blame should go to the hospital and security organisation. I have heard the call and was amazed that they were just put thru after asking to speak with “my granddaughter Kate”
Since when would HRH pick up a phone to call a public switchboard? FFS.

We need a Royal Commision of Enquiry into this and then create a Minstry of Fun to decide what is fun and make Laws about what is not fun.
What a sad world we live in, when ‘someone else’ is always to blame

Pete George, I read that (yesterdays open mike) and its well worth a read for anyone interested. Very obvious huge pressures comming down on bloggers on “that” site. Ardern, Hipkins, Robertson and one other I cant remember being blamed Pete?

The threat of “outing” one of the bloggers who I assume must have a public job and status to lose is a nasty card to play.

When topics come up I’m often undecided so I question and probe and throw different ideas into the mix. And I listen. Some mistake that for weakness, I think exploring and learning is a strength. Once I have learnt enough I’ll take a position. Sometimes that position isn strong, sometimes it’s not that important. Picking fights is a key art of politics.

No Pete,

You’re just uneducated, and you’re complaining about people being better informed and impatient with you.

Reid the point isnt to stimulate ChCh its to get the place built, and letting an employer pay $100 a day in tax free allowances is just a rort.
A mate of mine has spent a bit of time down there contracting and was paying $225 a seven day week for full board and getting looked after wayyy better than he does at home. He loves reminding his wife of that! “for $225 a week I can replace you with a better model…”

But someone else is always to blame Steve. They have to be. How else can I continue to be the absolute winner I in fact am if that’s not always but always the case? And I’m not sad about it at all. I’m a bit angry at the injustice of it all, but I’m not sad.

“As a wicketkeeper/batsman McCullum was among the best practitioners of his trade. As a batsman alone, the capacity in which he now plays, he is distinctly average.”

Finally someone in the adoring NZ media has the balls to say it! McCullum had the potential to be one of the great keeper-batsmen but pure ego saw him decide he was a specialist batsman. This experiment has predictably failed- Even Gilchrist never opened in Test matches (and Gilchrist was twice the batsman McCullum is)….

Yeah, but those Aussie shock jocks were just having a laugh weren’t they? That makes it all right. Just like that young man from Hastings who thought it was funny to pour petrol on his mate.
The pursuit of fun stands above any need to respect others.

A person can commit suicide for a variety of reasons. Those DJs did not think they would get anywhere near as far as they did and there is no way they could have anticipated the nurse/receptionist would commit suicide.

They gave enough hints it was a hoax. I really laughed when I hear the one imitating the Queen say, CHARLES, when are you going to take those bloody corgis for a walk while another DJ was barking like a dog in the background. I think that was a third DJ. Should he also be sacked?

Prince Charles even made a joke of it before this tragedy. I wonder how many DJs around the Western World have made hoax calls offer the years. This is the first suicide that can be linked loosely to such a call. Should we make such calls a criminal offence?

What if one of these DJs commit suicide because they cannot find a job? Who do we blame?

Apparently its because they have bank accounts in other countries and not NZ and that’s where they charge their services from regardless of where those same services are delivered. i.e. some and many times right here in NZ.
As there is a goods and services tax that operates here then that service attracts that GST regardless of which country the server is in, doesn’t it. The GST according to the Gestapo is on the goods or services supplied.
Now if that’s off shore then fine no problem, but, if its a service supplied in NZ such as many websites are as they are for local use and therefore of no use for export transactions the the GST applies IMHO.

But I didn’t work for Merryl lynch so what do I know?

I know that I have to pay GST to carry scummy organizations that don’t.

Saturday, 8, Dec, 2012 6:39AM

The Prime Minister has been explaining why some internet giants such as Google and Facebook are able to get away with paying almost no tax.

Labour MP David Clark has been on the attack this week claiming the tax being paid by the companies is far too little, given the scale of their activities here.

John Key says it comes down to where companies are booking their revenue.

He says if the server is in an offshore location then even when the advertising and economic activity is in New Zealand, the transaction isn’t happening here. ????? Niot what The ITD reckon.
short of logic.

Bwahahahaaaaaaaa – Perhaps someone should mention to Williams about the matter of the $158,000 that was borrowed from the taxpayer. And the ‘slight’ variation in stories relating to Owen Glenn and donations. And so on…..

I note that DPF was the other guest commenter on the segment… I’m amazed I didn’t hear him splutter into his cuppa…

I heard the call that was made to the hospital, it was not made by ‘shock jocks’ but by 20 something dj’s.

The call had a young women impersonating the queen, she first enquired to a ‘foreign sounding female nurse’ about ‘how Kate was doing’, that person then passed the phone to another female, the dj/queen then enquired from that nurse about ‘how is Kate doing’ – that nurse then elaborated at length. At times the nurse sounded ‘over whelmed’ as she was short of breath.

A male dj was also in the background impersonating prince charles with comments about corgies etc.

Nothing untoward or unreasonable was EVER asked from the nurses – just the general enquiry about ‘how kate was doing’.

-An essential predicate, attribute, or property is one that belongs to the very nature or essence of a thing. They are necessary and permanent properties of a thing.
-An accidental predicate, attribute, or property is a quality which is not an essential part of a thing’s essence. They are contingent and temporary properties of a thing.

Thus something which is essential is that which must be true of a thing. If that quality or characteristic is missing, then that thing or object no longer is or can be. As John and Paul Feinberg explain: “An essential characteristic is a quality that is part of the very essence of a thing. If that quality is lost, the thing ceases to exist. On the other hand, an accidental quality is one that is not part of a thing’s essence. It can be lost or gained without the thing ceasing to exist.”

“Neither a male-male nor a female-female relationship has the essential — i.e., of the essence — property of male-female. Same-sex marriage is neither validated nor created. It is metaphysically impossible. So to think is a logical fallacy; so to speak is semantic nonsense.”…….“Without such essential properties as sex that is compatible and complementary, an alleged marriage simply is not marriage at all. Without this, the relationship might be beautiful and wonderful socially or even domestically — but it is not marriage.

I look forward to yourself and Peter Dunn’s positions on gay ‘marriage’ once you both have ‘learnt enough’ Pete.

Harriet, Muehlenberg is begging the question with his argument. His whole argument rests on the claim that a difference in sex is essential to the definition of marriage. Which is also, more or less, his conclusion. But he doesn’t offer any actual support for that claim, just repeats it in various ways.

There is no difference between the form of his argument and the argument of someone who says that a similarity in race is essential to the definition of marriage. Oh, you can say “interracial marriage” and it’ll sound like it means something, but actually it’s metaphysically impossible. The only difference between such a person and Muehlenberg is their selection of unsupported assumptions.

“…..His whole argument rests on the claim that a difference in sex is essential to the definition of marriage. Which is also, more or less, his conclusion. But he doesn’t offer any actual support for that claim, just repeats it in various ways.

Yeah… he does……on the very same truths that Aristotle has made…..about predication, properties and the like. The reason they are truths Ryan is that they have held true for 3 millenia now. Until of course, right now heh?

You must have missed it Ryan – it was right at the start of Bill’s dismissive against making false claims!

“…..Philosophers going as far back as Aristotle have spoken of predication, properties and the like. Predication very simply refers to the attributing of characteristics to a subject or a thing. What a thing is may have different properties or ways of being characterised.

For our purposes here I wish to speak of two basic predications, or predicates, which have been distinguished in intellectual history for nearly three millennia now. These two main predicates are the essential and the accidental. It is important to be clear about how these differ, since discussions about personhood and the like depend upon these distinctions….”

… Same-sex marriage is neither validated nor created. It is metaphysically impossible. So to think is a logical fallacy; so to speak is semantic nonsense.”

That rationale would require that marriage is an essential characteristic of conception – which it is not. The argument is without merit – male-female marriage is as much an abitrary social construct as same-sex marriage

Yeah… he does……on the very same truths that Aristotle has made…..about predication, properties and the like. The reason they are truths Ryan is that they have held true for 3 millenia now. Until of course, right now heh?

You must have missed it Ryan – it was right at the start of Bill’s dismissive against making false claims!

I’m not disagreeing about predication, properties and the like. I’m pointing out that Bill doesn’t just say “things have properties, some of which are essential and some of which are accidental”. He also says:

My point is very simply this: marriage by its very nature and essence is about two people of different genders coming together.

And then goes on to repeat the same point over and over:

That is what makes marriage marriage. This gendered nature of marriage is its essential defining feature. Take away the two genders and you no longer have marriage. In the same way, take away three legs or three angles and you no longer have a triangle.

As if repeating the point will somehow make it seem more true. But at no point does he provide any kind of back-up for that single claim he repeats over and over.

Surely you can’t have a ‘human right’ to make false claims can you Ryan?

Is all that ‘human rights’ is really now about Ryan, is making false claims?- or is it just the gays lowering the standard of ‘human rights’ for themselves only?…or should we lower the standards of ‘human rights’ even lower again Ryan?……like maybe gays adopting chidren say?

Do two gay men and a child phsycologist make a good ‘parenting model’ Ryan?……or a 3-4th order one?

Sad about the London nurse taking her own life, bacause some Australian media scum conned her.
Currently no UK media would attempt such a thing, but given enough time after the Levension report they will be back
It could well have been a New Zealand media “expert” who would do this, after all the “Ambrose” affair is still topical inside media circles I understand.
Is there a moral difference ?

The argument is without merit – male-female marriage is as much an abitrary social construct as same-sex marriage

bhudson, not so.
Although “marriage” may be a social construct, it is based on the laws of Nature; that man and woman get together, procreate and raise offspring. Even if you do not believe in the one-partner-for-life concept, the coming together of male and female to produce offspring is entirely natural and not arbitrary.

Same-sex groupings or coming together are a modern invention, or are based solely on lifestyle.

The world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

“….My point is very simply this: marriage by its very nature and essence is about two people of different genders coming together…” – As if repeating the point will somehow make it seem more true. But at no point does he provide any kind of back-up for that single claim he repeats over and over…..”
”

Yeah…he does….it.s the very next sentance in that 2 sentance paragraph Ryan.

“….OK, now let’s relate this to the issue of homosexual marriage. My point is very simply this: marriage by its very nature and essence is about two people of different genders coming together. While marriage may have accidental predicates, such as the duration of the ceremony, the particular ages of the participants, whether it is a church wedding or not, and so on, its essential predicate is the one man/one woman requirement…..”

its essential predidicate is the oneman/one women requirement……that is what is being changed isn’t it Ryan…or are you asking for something else to be changed?

Surely you can’t have a ‘human right’ to make false claims can you Ryan?

Human rights? What on earth are you talking about? I’m just pointing out the logical error in that guy’s article.

Is all that ‘human rights’ is really now about Ryan, is making false claims?- or is it just the gays lowering the standard of ‘human rights’ for themselves only?…or should we lower the standards of ‘human rights’ even lower again Ryan?……like maybe gays adopting chidren say?

Do two gay men and a child phsycologist make a good ‘parenting model’ Ryan?……or a 3-4th order one?

More importantly….Do they make a good childhood Ryan?

Grow up!

Harriet, have you mixed me up with someone else? What on earth are you talking about? I was pointing out the logical error of Muehlenberg’s article. I didn’t mention human rights or adoption or parenting or anything. I think you’ve confused someone else’s post with mine or something.

Yeah…he does….it.s the very next sentance in that 2 sentance paragraph Ryan.

“….OK, now let’s relate this to the issue of homosexual marriage. My point is very simply this: marriage by its very nature and essence is about two people of different genders coming together. While marriage may have accidental predicates, such as the duration of the ceremony, the particular ages of the participants, whether it is a church wedding or not, and so on, its essential predicate is the one man/one woman requirement…..”

Harriet, that isn’t backing up his claim, it’s just stating it again. He says “marriage by its very nature and essence is about two people of different genders coming together” and repeats that the “one man/one woman” requirement is essential, not accidental. But that’s his claim! He hasn’t explained why we should believe that “one man/one woman” is an essential property of marriage. He just repeats it over and over without giving any reason to believe it’s true.

its essential predidicate is the oneman/one women requirement……that is what is being changed isn’t it Ryan…or are you asking for something else to be changed?

The law is being changed isn’t Ryan?

The law doesn’t decide what things are, Harriet. If “one man/one woman” was an essential property of marriage, the law couldn’t change that. But I don’t believe that “one man/one woman” is an essential property of marriage, and Muehlenberg certainly hasn’t given me any reason to think so, no matter how many times he repeats it.

I think marriage is a lifelong loving commitment between two consenting adults. I think love is an essential property of marriage. I think the lifelong commitment is an essential property of marriage. I think that being over the age of consent is an essential property of marriage. And I think that the married people’s sex, race, etc,, are accidental properties of marriage.

Another day of F undies obsessing about bum sex.
Of particular interest and delight to me is the main correspondents is our very own cross gender poster Harry IT
As it she he does not have a firm grip on gender I suggest that the possibility of harry it marrying any other sex is in fact exceedingly slim

Then you are agreeing then that Marriage’s ‘essential predictate’ is one man one woman?

No, I am not agreeing with that. When I said I’m not disagreeing about predication, properties and the like, I meant that I am not disagreeing with Aristotle that things have properties, some of which are essential. I just do not think that a difference in sex is essential to marriage.

And if you do agree, then you are making a false claim ‘That there is such a thing as gay marriage – so we should have it’.

Prove that gay marriage actually exists. It doesn’t. As it has two people from the same sex.

Gay Marriage is the dismantling of Marriage.

No, it’s not, because a difference of sex is not essential to marriage. A loving lifelong commitment between consenting adults is essential to marriage. There are already gay marriages – same-sex couples who have made loving lifelong commitments to each other. The law is being changed to recognise what is already there, not invent something that isn’t.

Ryan, it is worth reading the following article which looks at both views of what marriage is and is not (it is long though).

It begins –

What is marriage?

Consider two competing views:

Conjugal View: Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts – acts that constitute the behavioral part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognize and regulate it.

Revisionist View: Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognize and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.

It has sometimes been suggested that the conjugal understanding of marriage is based only on religious beliefs. This is false. Although the world’s major religious traditions have historically understood marriage as a union of man and woman that is by nature apt for procreation and childrearing,3 this suggests merely that no one religion invented marriage. Instead, the demands of our common human nature have shaped (however imperfectly) all of our religious traditions to recognize this natural institution. As such, marriage is the type of social practice whose basic contours can be discerned by our common human reason, whatever our religious background. We argue in this Article for legally enshrining the conjugal view of marriage, using arguments that require no appeal to religious authority.

Part I begins by defending the idea – which many revisionists implicitly share but most shrink from confronting – that the nature of marriage (that is, its essential features, what it fundamentally is) should settle this debate. If a central claim made by revisionists against the conjugal view, that equality requires recognizing loving consensual relationships, were true, it would also refute the revisionist view; being false, it in fact refutes neither view.

Revisionists, moreover, have said what they think marriage is not (for example, inherently opposite‐sex), but have only rarely (and vaguely) explained what they think marriage is. Consequently, because it is easier to criticize a received view than to construct a complete alternative, revisionist arguments have had an appealing simplicity. But these arguments are also vulnerable to powerful criticisms that revisionists do not have the resources to answer. This Article, by contrast, makes a positive case, based on three widely held principles, for what makes a marriage.

Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’s exiled leader, kissed the soil of Gaza as he stepped on to the Palestinian land for the first time in 45 years for a “victory rally”.

Accompanied by his deputy, Mussa Abu Marzuk, and other senior officials, Meshaal drove through the crossing and then got out and kissed the ground before embracing Gaza’s Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya.

“I hope God will make me a martyr on the land of Palestine in Gaza,” Mr Meshaal said.

Some extremely tenuous leaps in this article so far, Fletch. For example…

1. Marriage requires a comprehensive union.
2. Comprehensive union requires bodily union.
3. Bodily union requires both bodies being “coordinated for some biological purpose of the whole”.
4. Heterosexual sex is the only way to do that.
5. Therefore, marriage requires heterosexual sex.

No particular support for each fantastic leap along the way. We’re told that marriage requires a comprehensive union of two people, their lives and resources being given as examples. Then we’re told that a comprehensive union wouldn’t be complete without a “bodily union”, a term which is explained to mean heterosexual sex via another series of unsubstantiated leaps – for example, that bodily union means two bodies coming together for some biological purpose of the whole, like digestion or circulation.

But under all the obfuscation and different terminologies, it’s the same old story. “Comprehensive union” is revealed to be little more than a synonym for “heterosexual union”, and weaving a string of synonyms together in succession is presented as an argument of steps leading to a logical conclusion.

Got any logic or reasoning, or anything you’re demanding of the “marriage is a union of opposites” crowd, to back that up?

A cursory glance at human history would seem to suggest there are a whole bunch of more prosaic and practical reasons for two consenting adults to enter a marriage contract. Love isn’t much more than an optional extra/ added bonus if you can get it.

Quote – “Dear readers, the U.S. Department of Defence has blocked access to websites such as Islam Watch, The Religion of Peace, Wiki Islam etc. on the ground of hate speech. Given the Obama Administration is filled with Muslim Brotherhood allied Islamists, we are not surprised by this.

Our website is focused on the criticism of Islam or on disseminating accurate information about it, not on spreading hatred against any individual or group. If anything, it is Islam that is the epitome of hate speech. Please sign to petition demanding the removal of ban on these websites, which are vital to getting accurate in formation about Islam. People in the U.S. Department of Defence need those (sic) information more than anyone else in the world.”

Bloody surrender-monkeys and dhimmis in the White House. Since when did criticism of Islam become “hate speech”?
If there is ANYTHING in the world that SHOULD be criticised, it is Islam.

Got any logic or reasoning, or anything you’re demanding of the “marriage is a union of opposites” crowd, to back that up?

It’s a social construct that has changed over time. The only thing I have to back it up is popular opinion. Fortunately, for the definition of social constructs, that’s the only thing that counts.

A cursory glance at human history would seem to suggest there are a whole bunch of more prosaic and practical reasons for two consenting adults to enter a marriage contract. Love isn’t much more than an optional extra/ added bonus if you can get it.

Yes, romantic love has only come to be essential to the concept of marriage in relatively recent years, and even then only in some (mostly Western) cultures. Marriage is still arranged spouse-unseen in some places – they’re considered marriages in those cultures. Would they be considered marriages here? …Yes, I think they are. “Arranged marriage” is still not a contradiction in terms even to most Western people.

Thanks, James. I’ll give that more thought. Is romantic love essential or accidental in the popular conception of marriage these days?

A new petition on the Whitehouse website (anyone can petition the WH) asks that he forego his taxpayer funded $4 million holiday to Hawaii and instead use the money to help Maryland, which was savaged by Hurricane Sandy.

It reads –

On December 3, 2012, President Obama denied the request of Governor O’Malley and the entire Maryland congressional delegation to award Individual Assistance to Somerset County, Maryland to recover from Hurricane Sandy.

Somerset County is Maryland’s poorest county. The towns of Crisfield, Fairmount, and Deal Island were devastated by the hurricane, with flood waters causing widespread damage. These poor, working waterfront communities were already fragile from the decline of the seafood industry. Super Storm Sandy left them with no where to turn except FEMA for assistance.

For the $4 million it will cost taxpayers for the President to vacation in Hawaii, we could rebuild Somerset County. The President should stay home and send our tax money to Somerset County to rebuild.

Hey kowtow made sense for a change! Yes, polygamy and polyandry should be legal. If the state sensibly withdrew from regulating the personal relationships of consenting adults that would render all this nonsense about the ‘legality’ of marriage.

This week Starbucks agreed to pay an £20m over two years in UK tax. However, leading tax experts at Tolley have calculated that increased tax payable could result in a corresponding decrease in tax payable in other jurisdictions.

A thought experiment might crystallize our central argument. Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no.

And our view explains why not. If human beings reproduced asexually, then organic bodily union – and thus comprehensive interpersonal union – would be impossible, no kind of union would have any special relationship to bearing and rearing children, and the norms that these two realities require would be at best optional features of any relationship. Thus, the essential features of marriage would be missing; there would be no human need that only marriage could fill.

The insight that pair bonds make little sense, and uniquely answer to no human need, apart from reproductive‐type union merely underscores the conclusions for which we have argued: Marriage is the kind of union that is shaped by its comprehensiveness and fulfilled by procreation and child‐rearing. Only this can account for its essential features, which make less sense in other relationships. Because marriage uniquely meets essential needs in such a structured way, it should be regulated for the common good, which can be understood apart from specifically religious arguments. And the needs of those who cannot prudently or do not marry (even due to naturally occurring factors), and whose relationships are thus justifiably regarded as different in kind, can be met in other ways.

“…..What we should have is marriage equality, so that everyone of the determined age should have equal rights to get married with another person. It’s quite simple….’

Simple? Then tell us what marriage is Pete -not what you think it is, but what it is – so that gays can then ‘get’ married.

What are they actually going to get Pete? Hetro sex? kids of their own? or are these not part of ‘marriage’ Pete?

There is no such thing as ‘marriage equality’ when gays have relationships which in no way reflect Marriage Pete.-

“It is metaphysically impossible. So to think is a logical fallacy; so to speak is semantic nonsense.”…….“Without such essential properties as sex that is compatible and complementary, an alleged marriage simply is not marriage at all. Without this, the relationship might be beautiful and wonderful socially or even domestically — but it is not marriage.”

“….There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should be only between a man and a woman…….” “…Sex, of any kind, and children are completely incidental to the union of marriage….”

Crap – and you know that – as you have just read this [below] at 6:20 – you replied!

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

Hudson – first you have to understand what marriage IS before you can make an arguement for or against gay marriage.

Marriage has always been about hetrosexual sex and children, as described above, – sex and children IS FUNDAMENTAL to what marriage IS!

Can you show any proof of this? That latter is obviously not the case. I got married with no intention and no capability of having children.

Marriage and unions have varied over time in different societies.

Marriage laws refer to the legal requirements which determine the validity of a marriage, which vary considerably between countries.

In the past it has often involved a man taking virtual ownership over a woman, but in Western culture that’s no longer the case (some men still think it should still give them total rights over their wife but there’s no legal basis for that).

It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history

To clarify, in the above comment I was referring to my second marriage.

The first time I got married I was capable of having children but children and sex were not a part of the marriage arrangement at all. A sexual relationship was already well established and marriage had no effect on that, and there were no plans or expectations of children.

“….’Marriage has always been about hetrosexual sex and children’…is there any proof of this?….”

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

“…I got married with no intention and no capability of having children….” the link I listed also explains that position.

“….Marriage laws refer to the legal requirements which determine the validity of a marriage, which vary considerably between countries….”

It is generally accepted in law that ‘coitus’ validates a marriage. That is also at the link.

Why would the words ‘marriage’ or ‘married’ change?
In the situation where I observe to a friend “That’s Steve – he’s married” and the friend then sees Steve’s partner is Bruce, the friend will say “Oh, a gay-marriage – why didn’t you say that – a same-sex marriage?”
‘Marriage’ will still mean marriage, until someone needs to explain the arrangement further.
So deal with it. It probably won’t be the end of the whole fucking universe.

More on that tax ruling that accomodation allowances require taxing with PAYE. Now this is funny. I can see the Cabinet rushing to change the Law .Wonder if the Revenue Minister dreamed this up.

Under the new rules and retrospective. haha.
by Chris_J | 08 Dec 12, 11:16am

So Ministers provided with a Ministerial Home for the past four years which would have had a market rent of $80,000PA need to back pay $26,400 for each year so about $105,000 plus of course the ongoing $500pw extra tax…

I can see Parliament overturning this silly ruling in no time!!!!!! (Or maybe just an exemption for politicians???)

Login or register to post comments

by Wolly | 08 Dec 12, 12:01pm

No Chris, the Ministers will not have to pay the back taxes..it only to applies to workers!
Clearly the IRD have taken Bills worries about falling tax theft to heart….the chch rebuild is just too good a target not to steal as much from all involved as possible…with gst on top.
Up will go the rebuild cost by the amount stolen by the IRD and handed to Bill and John to buy votes with….wonderful move….
Let’s see how many skilled Kiwi change their minds about relocating to a freezing hut near chch for months at a time to help gun nail the joint back together.

I, the Penis, hereby request a raise in salary for the following reasons:
I do physical labour…
I work at great depths…
I plunge headfirst into everything I do…
I do not get weekends or public holidays off…
I work in a damp environment.
I work in a dark workplace that has poor ventilation..
I work in high temperatures…
My work exposes me to contagious diseases.
Sincerely,

P. Niss

The Response
Dear Penis:
After assessing your request, and considering the arguments you have raised, the administration rejects your request for the following reasons:
You do not work 8 hours straight…
You fall asleep after brief work periods.
You do not always follow the orders of the management team.
You do not stay in your designated area and are often seen visiting other locations.
You do not take initiative – you need to be pressured and stimulated in order to start working.
You leave the workplace rather messy at the end of your shift.
You don’t always observe necessary safety regulations, such as wearing the
correct protective clothing.
You will retire well before you are 65.
You are unable to work double shifts.
You sometimes leave your designated work area before you have completed the assigned task..
And if that were not all, you have been seen constantly entering and exiting the workplace carrying two suspicious-looking bags.
Sincerely,

This asshole looked at my beer belly last night and sarcastically said, “Is that Corona or Bud?”
I said, “There’s a tap underneath; taste it and find out.”

************

I was talking to a girl in the bar last night.
She said, “If you lost a few pounds, had a shave and got your hair cut, you’d look all right.”
I said, “If I did that, I’d be talking to your friends over there instead of you.”

*************
I was telling a girl in the pub about my ability to guess what day a woman was born just by feeling her boobs.
“Really” she said, “Go on then…try.”
After about thirty seconds of fondling she began to lose patience and said.
“Come on, what day was I born”?
I said, “Yesterday.”
************

I got caught taking a pee in the local swimming pool today.
The lifeguard shouted at me so loud, I nearly fell in.
*************
I went to the pub last night and saw a fat chick dancing on a table.
I said, “Nice legs.”
The girl giggled and said with a smile, “Do you really think so.”
I said “Definitely! Most tables would have collapsed by now. “

————————-
All over V Gina.
Thinks that will be my next incarnation when I need a new Name.

Got an old mate who went to Muraroa on the navy boat. He’s basically stuffed and fills in his days sending me this stuff. Not always printable and some days cats and dog stuff. Over fills the mailbox of i don’t clean it out.

“…’It is generally accepted in law that ‘coitus’ validates a marriage.’ -Show me where coitus is any factor in the law. I’ve just text searched the Marriage Act 1955 and there are no hits i in fact a search of the whole legislation site returns zero hits on coitus….”

“….Indeed, in the common law tradition, only coitus (not anal or oral sex even between legally wed spouses) has been recognized as consummating a marriage….”

“…..It is also clear that having children is not necessary to being married; newlyweds do not become spouses only when their first child comes along. Anglo‐American legal tradition has for centuries regarded coitus, and not the conception or birth of a child, as the event that consummates a marriage. Furthermore, this tradition has never denied that childless marriages were true marriages…..”

Go and read the link in full Pete and you will then understand that if gays get ‘married’ – they won’t actually be ‘married’ because that is not what we already know of ‘as marriage’. Here again is ‘what we know as marriage’-

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

Or in other words Pete – if at any point in time ALL humans were GAY we would not have what we know of as ‘Marriage’ – NOTHING LIKE IT WHATSOEVER!

Gays can’t get ‘married’ pete as marriage is not representitive of gays!

The world’s leading expert on the history of homosexuality is Dr David Greenburg, a New York sociologist, who is gay himself and is the author of a 635 page academic study of homosexuality through the ages called “The Construction of Homosexuality”. It has been hailed within academic circles as the most “extensive and thorough” analysis of homosexuality ever published. And what does he say? That homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. He said he had “an obligation to the truth”. Greenburg looked at all recorded examples of homosexuality. Every single one, he wrote, could be traced back to sexual behaviour practice rather than an innate sexual identity.

So much for the “born that way” theory.

Greenberg’s book came out in 1988, that is nearly a quarter of a century ago – before most of the modern scientific research – and, judging from reviews, it conflates same-sex behaviour with same-sex orientation.

Our modern conception of marriage did evolve from child-raising family structures in various cultures.

However, the simple fact that any one of us can easily imagine an infertile straight couple getting married and living together without having children until they die demonstrates that child-raising is no longer essential to what we consider to be marriage.

There doesn’t seem to be much solid evidence that the Operation Grapple veterans were affected much by service near the Christmas Island tests in 1957-58, let alone the almost minuscule exposure that NZ sailors might have received in 1973 near Mururoa.

Crap – and you know that – as you have just read this [below] at 6:20 – you replied!

“….Almost every culture in every time and place has had some institution that resembles what we know as marriage. But imagine that human beings reproduced asexually and that human offspring were self‐sufficient. In that case, would any culture have developed an institution anything like what we know as marriage? It seems clear that the answer is no….”

So let us assume that human beings are reproduced sexually and that human offspring are not self-sufficient. How much is marriage required to bring these about?

Answer: Not at all.

There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

“……There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should only be between a man and a woman….”

1. Weakening Marriage

No one deliberates or acts in a vacuum. We all take cues (including cues as to what marriage is and what it requires of us) from cultural norms, which are shaped in part by the law. Indeed, revisionists themselves implicitly concede this point. Why else would they be dissatisfied with civil unions for samesex couples? Like us, they understand that the state’s favored conception of marriage matters because it affects society’s understanding of that institution.

In redefining marriage, the law would teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined. Since emotions can be inconstant, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would tend to increase marital instability – and it would blur the distinct value of friendship, which is a union of hearts and minds. Moreover, and more importantly, because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions any more than ordinary friendships in general should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them. And less able to understand the value of marriage itself as a certain kind of union, even apart from the value of its emotional satisfactions, people would increasingly fail to see the intrinsic reasons they have for marrying or staying with a spouse absent consistently strong feeling.

In other words, a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort people’s understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain. And that likely erodes people’s adherence to marital norms that are essential to the common good. As University of Calgary philosopher Elizabeth Brake, who supports legal recognition of relationships of any size, gender composition, and allocation of responsibilities, affirms, “marriage does not simply allow access to legal entitlements; it also allows partners to signal the importance of their relationship and to invoke social pressures on commitment.”

Of course, marriage policy could go bad – and already has – in many ways. Many of today’s public opponents of the revisionist view – for example, Maggie Gallagher, David Blankenhorn, the U.S. Catholic bishops – also opposed other legal changes detrimental to the conjugal conception of marriage. We are focusing here on the issue of same‐sex unions, not because it alone matters, but because it is the focus of a live debate whose results have wide implications for reforms to strengthen our marriage culture. Yes, social and legal developments have already worn the ties that bind spouses to something beyond themselves and thus more securely to each other. But recognizing same‐sex unions would mean cutting the last remaining threads. After all, underlying people’s adherence to the marital norms already in decline are the deep (if implicit) connections in their minds between marriage, bodily union, and children. Enshrining the revisionist view would not just wear down but tear out this foundation, and with it any basis for reversing other recent trends and restoring the many social benefits of a healthy marriage culture.

Those benefits redound to children and spouses alike. Because children fare best on most indicators of health and wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents, the further erosion of marital norms would adversely affect children, forcing the state to play a larger role in their health, education, and formation more generally. As for the adults, those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society would be hit the hardest. But adults more generally would be harmed insofar as the weakening of social expectations supporting marriage would make it harder for them to abide by marital norms.

Given the marital relationship’s natural orientation to children, it is not surprising that, according to the best available sociological evidence, children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents. Studies that control for other relevant factors, including poverty and even genetics, suggest that children reared in intact homes fare best on the following indices:

Consider the conclusions of the left‐leaning research institution Child Trends:

[R]esearch clearly demonstrates that family structure matters for children, and the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low‐conflict marriage. Children in single‐parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes. . . . There is thus value for children in promoting strong, stable marriages between biological parents. . . .”[I]t is not simply the presence of two parents, . . . but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support children’s development.

According to another study, “[t]he advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents.” Recent literature reviews conducted by the Brookings Institution, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, the Center for Law and Social Policy, and the Institute for American Values corroborate the importance of intact households for children.24

Firstly that piece is an opinion on what marriage should be, and an opinion on what would happen to marriage if the definition was changed.

It provides no needs-based evidence at all as to why marriage must be between a man and a woman.

To the extent that it tries to claim studies showing children benefiting from family structures with two biological parents, that is not an argument against same-sex marriage – it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed.

Let’s see you change the lobbying to that then. Drop the opposition to same-sex marriage and instead focus your efforts on outlawing procreation and child rearing by those who are not married.

“……It provides no needs-based evidence at all as to why marriage must be between a man and a woman….To the extent that it tries to claim studies showing children benefiting from family structures with two biological parents, that is not an argument against same-sex marriage – it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed…”

Now that you acknowledge that children benefit from Marriage we can move on –but firstly “…it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed…” stop talking shit – no one has ever said that -anywhere!

2. Obscuring the Value of Opposite‐Sex Parenting As an Ideal

As we have seen in Part I.B, legally enshrining conjugal marriage socially reinforces the idea that the union of husband and wife is (as a rule and ideal) the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children – an ideal whose value is strongly corroborated by the best available social science. Note, moreover, that the need for adoption where the ideal is practically impossible is no argument for redefining civil marriage, a unified legal structure of incentives meant precisely to reinforce the ideal socially and practically – to minimize the need for alternative, case‐by‐case provisions.

If same‐sex partnerships were recognized as marriages, however, that ideal would be abolished from our law: no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and father; that men and women on average bring different gifts to the parenting enterprise; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways.

In that case, to the extent that some continued to regard marriage as crucially linked to children, the message would be sent that a household of two women or two men is, as a rule, just as appropriate a context for childrearing, so that it does not matter (even as a rule) whether children are reared by both their mother and their father, or by a parent of each sex at all.

On the other hand, to the extent that the connection between marriage and parenting is obscured more generally, as we think it would be eventually, no kind of arrangement would be proposed as an ideal.

But the currency of either view would significantly weaken the extent to which the social institution of marriage provided social pressures and incentives for husbands to remain with their wives and children. And to the extent that children were not reared by both parents, they would be prone to suffer in the ways identified by social science.

In other words Hudson, gays are just another thing that is wrecking the institution that benefits children….or as you say in your words “…To the extent that it tries to claim studies showing children benefiting from family structures with two biological parents…”

The claims have just been supported.

BTW – I agree that private schools will only be for wealthy people if they loose more funding from the government, and that the poor kids will miss out from having the choice of a ‘generally’ better education. I too, would like to see vouchers introduced.

Do private schools operate to ‘best’ standards so the children are not prone to suffer in the ways identified by social science as damaging……like social pressure lowering standards?

Glancing through the above posts regarding marriage and yesterdays dissertation on anal sex from Ryan Sproull,

Ryan would get my vote as the sickest sadsack fuck posting on this blog.

I kept things pretty clinical, Bereal, and limited purely to things relevant to my point and Harriet’s argument.

There is nothing in Ryans argument that would object to a marriage between a person and, say, a goldfish.

Bereal, if you have read my posts yesterday and today, you will have seen me repeatedly say that marriage is a loving commitment between two consenting adults. Is a goldfish a consenting adult? No. Read a bit more carefully (rather than this “glancing” business) before you write a rabid tirade.

It is a recognised syndrome that deviants will work to undermine societies morals, lower natural standards,
in order to make their own deviant conduct seem acceptable.

You’ve got civil unions now Ryan,why can’t youjust be happy with that ?

My wife and I have got marriage, actually, Bereal. It’s just that I want all of my fellow consenting-adult New Zealanders to be treated equally with me by the law.

Why do you feel the need to try and work toward changing honest God fearing peoples beliefs ?

Well, this all started with me applying a little critical reasoning to Harriet’s comments last night. I think my motivation was based around how she kept saying that gay people were idiotic, followed by smug smiley faces, and I have a condition where I absolutely have to demonstrate how stupid someone is when they’re smugly calling someone else stupid. So I started with her misuse of the word “compliment” and ended up with showing how her argument against anal sex suggests that human bodies were designed in such a way that plenty of straight couples shouldn’t have sex.

As for her being an “honest God-fearing person”, well, I don’t know. She swore at me when I suggested that she was referring to God, so I’m guessing maybe she’s not a God-fearing person at all. As for her honesty, I couldn’t speak to that.

Mate, I don’t even know who you are. I don’t recall ever talking to you before. I’m pretty sure I don’t need your leave to go my way, and I wouldn’t have a clue how to stop you going yours. But I hope you have a very merry Christmas.

Actually beryl
I fully support the marriage of gay people or whatever as long as they are consenting adults.
You are quite welcome to marry a whole rugby team so far as I am concerned.
Where did I get this view from
From reading far right views by the sci-fi writer Heinlein when I was a kid

So let us assume that human beings are reproduced sexually and that human offspring are not self-sufficient. How much is marriage required to bring these about?

Answer: Not at all.

There is no needs-based argument as to why marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

bhudson, I don’t think the argument is that marriage is necessary for procreation. The argument is, rather, that because marriage arose from child-raising family structures, and traditionally has been associated with bearing and raising children, it is therefore today still essential to the definition of marriage.

Ryan, what I mean is that marriage in a civil society involves getting permission from the state in the form of a licence.
No such permission is necessary or even relevant for people who are separate from that society.

Ryan, what I mean is that marriage in a civil society involves getting permission from the state in the form of a licence.
No such permission is necessary or even relevant for people who are separate from that society.

Shouldn’t these two groups be treated differently?

Can you explain who are the groups in this scenario? You’re not saying that gay New Zealanders are separate from civil society?

“……The argument is, rather, that because marriage arose from child-raising family structures, and traditionally has been associated with bearing and raising children, it is therefore today still essential to the definition of marriage….”

Marriage is to the benefit of children, as children and as adults, therefor to society, infinitly . Marriage is a standard. Nothing at all -or sameness- as a replacement for marriage, is not a standard. It is ordinary at best. Being ordinary is not an achievement or anything to aspire to. At best an existance.

You say you want your fellow New Zealanders to be treated equally with you by the law.

Tell us all how you see the difference under the law between your marriage and my gay friends civil union ?

If there is a legal advantage to one or the other in your mind, what is it ?

Even in a situation where all of the rights were completely identical (including a revision of adoption laws, etc.), for my union with my wife to be called by the state “marriage” and your gay friends’ union to be called by the state “civil union” – for them to be called anything different at all – implies a judgement call by the state that it is not entitled to make.

And there’s some cultural weight to these terms too, built up over time. Gay New Zealanders are brought up in the same New Zealand society that I was – told, like me, that one of the goals in life is to find someone to share it with and marry them. I see no reason why they should not be able to share in the weight of this tradition that stretches so far back in the history of their culture.

And, sadly, there’s also weight around the denial by the state of the term “marriage” to same-sex unions. There are many people who believe that being gay is evil, either due to adherence to their religion or due to using their religion to justify their personal prejudices. And among those people, there are many who want their religious views to be imposed on everyone via the machinery of the state. Those are the people who opposed the Homosexual Reform Act in the ’80s, and today they oppose the application by the state of the term “marriage” to same-sex unions.

That’s the main thing that an “identical rights with different names” situation does. It says to gay Kiwis, “We’ll give you all the same rights and powers, but you’re not a reaaaaaal marriage.” And the voice is from those people who think that gay people are evil because of their religions, and they’re speaking it through the megaphone of the state. And I don’t think the state should be used to impose some religions’ views on everyone.

And I don’t think the state should be used to impose some religions’ views on everyone.

The facts is that religious ideas are promoted by the state via the Westminster system, which has its origins in Christian tradition. These ideas are not limited to the rejection of same-sex marriages, the idea that man-made law should be universally applied is fundamentally a religious doctrine.

You say that by calling one a marriage and another a civil union implies a judgement by the state
i can’t see how this means one is favoured over the other by the state in law.
They are different relationships and i can’t see how it discriminates against either one or other to call them by
different names.

Lets agree with the fact that gays do now have equal rights under the law in NZ
no probleemo from me.

But two gays getting together is different than a marriage between a man and a woman.

You say that by calling one a marriage and another a civil union implies a judgement by the state
i can’t see how this means one is favoured over the other by the state in law.
They are different relationships and i can’t see how it discriminates against either one or other to call them by
different names.

Lets agree with the fact that gays do now have equal rights under the law in NZ
no probleemo from me.

But two gays getting together is different than a marriage between a man and a woman.

So lets give it a different name.

Where is your problem with that ?

Two gays getting together is not different from a marriage between a man and a woman. They are both loving lifelong commitments by pairs of consenting adults. Sure, they can’t have natural children, but neither can infertile straight couples. LIke the infertile straight couple, they can adopt if they want. Like many fertile straight married couples, perhaps they’ll choose not to have kids.

There is no reason to give it a different name, so the insistence on giving it a different name implies that desire to have one’s religious or personal prejudices amplified through the state.

Now that you acknowledge that children benefit from Marriage we can move on

No Harriet, I said “to the extent that [the studies you referenced showing any correlation between good outcomes for children and two biological married parents.] That is not to say I agree with your premise that a household with married parents provides the best outcome for all, or even most, children.

but firstly “…it is an argument that only married couples should be allowed to breed…” stop talking shit – no one has ever said that -anywhere

Yes Harriet, you did. Right about here where you quoted the following words:

the family structure that helps children the most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low‐conflict marriage. Children in single‐parent families, children born to unmarried mothers, and children in stepfamilies or cohabiting relationships face higher risks of poor outcomes.

Either that or you’re saying you’re comfortable with children having poor outcomes. Which rather undermines your argument for marriage to remain a man and a woman because it’s better for the children.